Secrets of the Bible

• Introduction
• Genesis
• The Creation of Man
• The Paradise
• The Snake - Symbol of Evil
• The Wood of Life
• The Children of the First Created
• The 10 Tribal Leaders & the 6 Days of Creation
• The Tower of Babel
• Abraham
• The Sacrifice of Isaac
• Jacob and Esau
• Exodus
• The Laws
• Joshua
• The Deuteronomy
• The Prophecies of Daniel
• The Revelation
• The Gospels

THE LAWS

      Let see now the divine laws, and other traditional and state ones that all together appear, and also a lot of people preach and teach as God's laws. At first let put aside all those unreasonable "words of God", because it is indeed annoying to read about "words of God", as for seven days there shall not be yeast in your houses, and whoever eats leavened bread from the first until the seventh day, this soul will be exterminated, or "words of God" as sanctify to Me every first-born, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast belongs to Me. And there were many other traditional laws and taboos, which of course were belonged to the gods, and not to God.

     Besides, why it is so terrible sin to eat leavened bread. We would be really very happy if this sin, if every one's sin were only this kind of sin! But even so, what God would do with the first or second-born offspring, and why would claim them for? God wants every human to belong to Him regardless if they are first or second, or third-born. Did perhaps the Lord ever have any preferences to some of His disciples for the reason that was first or second born? Or perhaps Lord said; look, if you were lucky enough to be born first among your brothers there is going to be for you the first position in the Kingdom of God? Why the absurdity? It is so easy to understand that all these, as the first-born, the circumcision, the sacrifices, the unleavened etc started from the gods and remained as traditional taboo laws, which were the links to unite together the tribes. The members of every tribe needed the ideals of the tribe; they needed to be proud of it, because to survive and develop needed to have security, to have common identity and common front. As it is now, they needed to recognize and understand each other, to be proud for their tribe, the language, the religion and the nation.

    They needed to feel that they are belonging in a great tribe with ideals, with power and prestige, with holy fathers and famous ascenders. That was the main role of those traditional laws, because for that time the racialism was inevitable, and in the limits required. So of course, Moses wouldn't abolish the traditions that used to constitute the obligatory identity of the tribes, but while these things existed before he was born, then naturally, it was impossible to be his inventions. All these and many more, as laws of the Leviticus about the sacrifices, taboo laws on the women, because they are women etc, laws taboo on the dead people, on whom they shouldn't touch, and others, started from the tribal leaders of the "primitive" people, and transferred as traditional laws of those gods, and been written by the state officials in the books of Law. All of them, together with the other divine laws of the holy inspired Prophet remained in the Bible as Moses Law.

      All these should be cleared and self-understood in our time, but unfortunately, the perception still prevails that all were Moses' writings. The worst of all is, that these books write about genocides, write about slaughters of innocent people, atrocities and many other crimes, and according to them those entire criminal acts were acts of Moses and of Joshua. Further they write clearly that all those crimes happened by the will and by the orders of God. And because we feel as suffocated from anger and indignation in front of those evil deeds that no more no less are presented as Word of God, we must show and prove that all these are satanic lies, and show that many of those laws and crimes reflect the cunning interests of the rich rulers. So let us try to show the very obvious contradictions and lies.                 

      So according the written word, all the laws that are mentioned in the books, from Exodus to Deuteronomy, God gave them to Moses. Of course, this is not true at all. Beside the laws there are also death penalties that also appear as divine, and used to apply for various faults, many of which are contradictory and unreasonable, and certainly don't justify at all the death penalty. There are also laws of hatred and revenge that are presented as divine, which of course are conflicting with the teaching of the Lord. We realize of course that except the 10 Commandments, many other laws were belonging to Moses and so they are divine. We also realize that some hard penalties were required for some of the crimes of the time, but they were state laws and certainly were not divine. Others are adapted to protect and serve "clever" interests, and others the Leviticus laws that mentioned sacrifices, diseases, the "sinful women" because had monthly period or gave birth, etc. So according to them, God gave all the laws to Moses, and therefore, and again according to them, all the laws, just and unjust, good and evil, all are according the Will of God.

      The best way or rather the unique way to find out which laws are according the Will of God, and therefore which laws come directly or indirectly from God, is to look at them in the Light of the Lord. To look them in the Light also means to have the Light into our soul, we should love the others, we should try to be just as the Lord, to be sensitive and incompatible, and must be liberated from religion-state inventions with fears and other darkening bonds. Generally we must feel really God and the human, and we should try to be imaginary in the position of that unknown man, of the woman, of the unknown slave and child. To that unknown man who suffered terrible sufferings, who been whipped and trampled, who starved and weep ed working hard and without stopping, and he saw his vain toil not belonging to him, his endless toil, which instead to offer him a respectable life, and a drop of happiness, it was converted into more wealth and property of the greedy and "blessed" master, that master who said and even to day says, that he had the "law" of God in his side. Of that unknown man, who been depressed and robbed from the "divine laws" of the "pious" masters, and been tortured and killed from the barbarity of the "Saint Felons".    

      They did a lot and deceived a lot, they spoke a lot by using empty and cunning words about theocracies and about divine laws, but whatever they did and said, and still do and say, if not matching with the Light of the world, with abhorrence must be rejected. The Lord Jesus and His teachings are the Light, and He taught and revealed the true Will of God, and so the Lord's teaching is the real law of God. With the Light we search the darkened past, and with the Light we realize what truly comes from God and what does not. He is the Light that illuminates the laws of Holy navigation, and at the same time He is the entrance of the harbour and the Captain of the ship. Whatever has been said before or after the Lord Christ, we must look at with His light and if it matches, then whoever said it, whether Prophets, simple men or even philosophers that lived in pagan nations, it is the same as God Himself said it. And the opposite also applies, if it doesn't match with the Lord Christ, then we must reject it, even if those who said it maintain that they were God's people or swear like Mohamed that he heard angels deliver God's messages.

      The Lord Christ confirmed and completed God's Law, because it was falsified from the state officials who were serving the rich rulers, but as the Lord didn't come at that time to establish His Kingdom, He didn't also come to abolish the state, and so He was not occupied with the state laws. As long the human state exists, people should obey to its laws, but of course historic and social circumstances cause often revolutions that impose the changing of the laws. Lord taught to obey the state laws, but in those limits which don't become obstacle in the relation between the faithful and God. In this case Christians should not obey to those laws. As for example, a Christian shouldn't obey a state law, which says, do not believe in God, or, you are not allowed to be a Christian, ant etc.

     Speaking briefly about the state, we all know of course that the organized state started to appear at the first steps of every civilization, when the big oppositions and conflicts started to dominate as a result of the economic oppositions resulted from the private properties of big areas of land, which needed workers to work, and those workers were converted by various methods and violence into private properties of the state's powerful members. So the state became and was the king's and big owners' state, which regularly was called theocracy and theocratic, and almost always used to call their laws divine ones. As we know, the first written constitution was Babylonian one, which was found in 1901 in the ruins. In there the king Hammurabi stands for as the son of a god, who took the laws from the sun god. And the first human constitution was established in ancient Greece in 621 B. C, by Dragon, he was the first one who said, not the gods, but we the people make laws.  But let this aside, because it is not much our concern.

     Let us start from the words of the Lord about the laws. According to Matthew's Gospel chapter 15, the Pharisees observed that the Lord's disciples didn't wash their hands before they ate, and the Lord said. And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, honour your father and mother, and whoever speaks evil of their mother and father must be put to death. According to Mark Gospel 7,10 said, For Moses said, honour your father and mother and he who speaks evil of his father and mother let him be put to death. Well, it doesn't make any difference, if the one wrote God and the other Moses, because he was the great Prophet of God, and whatever he wrote is divine, because God inspired him and wrote according to God's Will. But certainly the Lord didn't say God and Moses, and therefore the one of them used wrong word. But wrong or correct, we comprehend that many words, which mentioned on Lord's teaching, even if mistaken or apparently mistaken, they transfer some messages, and in this case, the message says; whatever was really written by Moses was according the Will of God. The message says; that one, which God wants, is that one, which was written by Moses.

     So certainly both Gospel writers transfer the same message, and certainly Lord spoke about the death penalty. But what Lord meant was certainly this; you know that God gave the law and the death penalty, and although you know it, you transgress the law for your tradition.  As we showed and as anyone understands it was not the time for critique and elucidation of the writings, and so the Lord wouldn't explain that, yes, this law is God's law, but not the death penalty. But the important part in here is, they knew that God gave the law and the death penalty.   Those people were taught and themselves were teachers of the law and knew, rightly or wrongly that it was God's law, and by all that, they used to transgress the law for their tradition, and this was exactly their sin, because that was what they knew, and they used to say my gift is enough to them from which they could have some benefit and without honour them. That means, I can give a piece of bread to my parents and I am not any more obligated to them. I don't honour them any more. In another words they used to invent various hypocritical ways to unload their duties, and used to transgress the laws which they knew that were God's laws, regardless of if it was or not (the death penalty), they knew it was given by God and that was a sin. The sin is narrowly related with knowledge even if that knowledge sometimes is mistaken, and the Lord said to them, if you didn't know, you wouldn't have sins but you say that you know, so your sins remain.

      The Lord preached that judgment comes after death, and He never preached death penalties and other punishments on earth. The opposite, He preached not 7 but 77 times forgiveness, and the 7 and 77, which is 777 was not spoken accidentally. Lord mentioned on the 777, which are symbols. God tolerates and forgives sin until the end of the days. Another example is the working on Saturdays, for which the death penalty applied as well to anyone who worked. In the book of Numbers is written that someone was arrested for collecting wood for the fire, and brought him in front of Moses and Aaron. According the writings, they asked God what to do with him. The same things all the time, God was speaking by the hours. So they wrote that God told them to stone him. Of course this story was adapted to Moses for validity. But the Lord preaches and said, it was not man who created for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was created for man. So they shouldn't stone people because of the Sabbath, and a fine or some other punishment would be enough, although they wrote that it was God's Will and order to stone that miserable man for collecting wood!

     In the books there are also instructions to stone prostitutes and adulteresses. When a group of teachers of the law arrested a woman who committed adultery they dragged her in front of the Lord by indignation and maniac, but especially brought her in front of the Lord to show unmistakable evidence to prop up accusations against Him. And this action alone is enough to prove that the Lord was against many of the state laws, especially the death penalties. Certainly they were hypocrites but they were also teachers of the law, and they used teach in the temples and synagogues. Every law was according the writings God's law, and although the Lord Jesus preached God's Will, He didn't subjugate in the letter of the state law, and often was teaching the opposite. The Lord taught and said indirect that the law "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was not Gods law, Lord preached it on the mountain, and those who set an ear everywhere to spy on Him, had heard His words. People often said that Lord forgave prostitutes and adulteresses and gave them another opportunity of repentance and salvation, but according the law, they should have been stoned to death. And behold at last they had an opportunity to have clear accusations against Him. The woman was arrested in the very act of committing adultery, and there were witnesses who confirmed it, so according to the law she should die by stoning.

     So what do You say? Should the Law be enforced? It was impossible for them to foresee what Lord would say; otherwise they wouldn't drag with such enthusiasm that dejected woman. But they were very sure that Lord would "blaspheme again" by opposing God's law. Well, the law, "don't commit adultery" is of course God's law, but not the death penalty. The Lord bend down and started write with His finger on the earth. He was probably counting their sins or maybe He didn't want to bring that shamed woman in a difficult position by looking at her in front of her accusers, and certainly she was crying while the others insulted her gracelessly and were ready to crush her with stones. Then the Lord answered; whoever of you is sinless should throw the first stone. Great words of the Light! It was impossible for them to foresee what Lord would say, and certainly didn't expect this kind of answer, because who was sinless? But there was no one. Where and when did a sinless man ever exist who could enforce the death penalties, which God supposedly gave them? And behold they bent the heads in shame and left, because nobody had authority from God to stone anybody, and besides if God wanted to enforce the death penalty, He could do it Himself, and without asking the non-existent sinless man. And besides if someone is sinless, he loves and forgives, and of course would never stone a woman, and the only sinless man was He, Who loved her and forgave her. Where are your accusers o' woman, no body condemned you? Nobody Lord. Neither I do, go and from now on don't sin again. So Lord saved the woman and made her feel the greatness of love and forgiveness, and that is exactly what God wants, otherwise and if really God wanted to contemn people before giving them every chance of salvation, then there wouldn't be any hypocrite around, neither corrupted judges or exploiters or dogs to bark beggars.

      Now of course we don't need to say a lot to prove that the death penalties were not from God. Besides the death penalty and the killing by stones was a barbarian action, which is fragrantly against God's Law, Don't kill. In the stoning various people were participating and were throwing stones by the intention to kill someone else. They were acting against the law, don't kill, and also they were acting without love to the others, and so they used abolish and the other law which says, love the others. Even if they were innocent until that time, their innocence was lost, and instead to be innocents, they were converted into guilty tramples of the Law, they were converted into sadists and executioners. So we don't need to say a lot, God gave only laws, but never death penalties. If the sinful state with the exploiters and the blind priests, were pushing people out of control, and then the state needed the horror and the death penalties to rule, that doesn't mean at all, that it was possible, for God to adapt Himself to the necessities ant to the schemes of the state.  

      In His speech on the mountain, Matthew 5, Lord said, don't think that I came to abolish the law and the Prophets; I didn't come to abolish it, but to fulfil it. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished. It is very obvious that Lord spoke about God's law, which is the 10 commandments, and other divine laws that were written by Moses, which were confirmed by the Lord. And of course Lord didn't mean, that He came to fulfil laws that were against His Will. And there are many unjust laws, which are written in the Bible as God's laws. By the words, "I came to fulfil the law", Lord says direct and indirect, that I Am God, and I came to fulfil My laws, the divine ones, and the divine laws that were written in the Bible by Moses or not by Moses is according to His teaching. If they are not according to His teaching, then of course, they were not divine laws, and certainly Lord did not come to fulfil the various state laws, which many of them are cunning and adapted to serve cunning interests.

     But because at that time, the Lord didn't come to abolish the state, and because all the laws, divine and state laws, were all written as God's laws, Lord spoke generally saying, you have heard that ancients were told. The ancient people were taught somewhere correctly about God's Will, and somewhere incorrectly. But of course if God gave all the laws, then certainly, Lord wouldn't contradict His Father, or Himself. Lord would say, you heard what God spoke to ancient people, and of course whatever God told them was and is correct. Let see it more clearly. You have heard that the ancients were told, you shall not commit murder' and whoever commits murder shall be liable to the courts. Now whoever said that this law is God's law was correct, and of course is one o the 10 Commandments, but it is not enough not commit murder, and Lord fulfils this law and said, not even insult another.

      The same thing with adultery, because it is not enough not commit adultery, whoever wants to approach God must love and respect others like they were brothers. He must fight back the evil thoughts that lead to passions and start from animal instincts, and evil must be cut from its roots, we must not only prune the evil sprouts. We must fight back before the adultery stage, which will probably lead to adultery, and as a result will destroy a family. But also what is good about, if we say that we love our friend or our fellow man but have evil thought about his wife? Besides men and women are not sexual objects, they are human souls loved by God, and also as bodies and souls together have a destination from the Creator to recreate new lives, and not to become slaves of the flesh, and slaves of the devil.

      Again you have heard that the ancients were told, you shall not make false vows, but you shall fulfil your vows to the Lord. But I say to you make no oath at all, but let your statement be yes or no, as anything beyond this is evil. So this law was completely rejected by God although it remained as a state law. The question is, why would God ask you to swear inasmuch as Lord knows if you say the truth or not, and so it is not necessary to ask you to make oaths. But the state doesn't know, and that is why it obligates its citizens to swear, and called it by necessity God's law and will. So they used the fear of God to terrorize and curb the people.

     You heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you resist him who is evil, and that also means to avoid revenge. The state had to face big racial conflicts between the various tribes. Often small mater provoked serious revenges, and therefore correctly they needed a law to balance the condition, and called that law, God's law. You have heard that it was said, you should love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you…. to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. So we see that half of this law is correct and according to the Will of God, and the other half is not. They used to teach the people that it was God's law to hate the enemy, and it is obvious that it was an addition to Moses' law. It wouldn't be Moses' one, because while God gave this law directly to Moses, then how could he correct or fulfil God and write hate your enemy? Would ever Moses have the courage and the audacity to "correct" and "complete" God? But especially in wars they needed to hate the enemy, and to convince people to destroy the enemy, they used to consecrate hate as God's "law". But we all realize of course that the enemy of a nation is not also the enemy of God.

      The commandment  "honour your father and mother', continues with the words, to live many years on the earth. It is not a promise at all, and rather was written from Moses as an advice beside or after the commandments. It doesn't mean at all that he who honours his parents will live many years on the earth. What would be the meaning of that promise? Why would someone who honours his parents expect returns? There existed a lot of people who didn't honour their parents and they lived a very long time, and the opposite is also true, some who did honour them died young. But except him who honours his parents is distinguished at least by basic human's feelings, it is also his duty to honour them, and so why would expect thing exchanged for what is his duty? The parents are like creators; they brought him into the world. They fed him, gave him drink, cleaned him, looked after him, they were concerned for his safety, and now to honour them he expects payment by living many years on earth? This kind of expectation is rather a commercial exchange, and God never trades. The message that comes out from this "promise" is this one. If you honour your ascenders you will survive as nation many years. Not him who honour his parents will live many years, but you will live as nation many years, and you will not be lost in the scattering in the four corners of the earth. That is the meaning of these words. And from all the posterior history was proved how important was to honour the Prophets and the fathers. If they didn't do it, they would be lost as nation. It doesn't say you will live forever as nation, but you will live for many years, because no nation is to exist forever.  

     Let us see some other law about buying and selling humans that appears as divine!!! The "divine" law says; if a Hebrew buys another Hebrew, the slave must work for him only 6 years, then his master must set him free. If he "doesn't want" to be free, for various reasons, for if he has a family and doesn't want to leave his children and his wife—over who the master had authority—then the master must bore his slave's ear and pass a ring through it, and be a slave for the rest of his life. Woe to the slave who had human feelings for his wife and children. Was it better for him to hate them? Not really. When he was sold to the "pious" slave-owner together with his family, then when he won his freedom he could take his family as well. It is understood that in what his fate will change when the master holds in his hands, his means of life? His "pious" masters hermetically sealed all roads to a respectable and happy life for the slave. You will be a slave to me or you will die. But if he was purchased before he had a family, then it was considered that his master gave him a wife and children, and so they would be also masters' property, like sheep or cows for plowing, and if the slave didn't love them enough, then he would leave alone and miserable. Did the Lord perhaps come to fulfil and confirm this law too? Not of course.

      But let us see Moses also and as an ordinary legislator. Because this law, as a divine one, there is no way to be swallowed. The same thing also of the next one, which says, if you sell your daughter… Well, there is no way that God would ever say, that you may sell your daughter and for any reason. Not only these, but many others, which are written in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  So let us see Moses as a self-legislator, and at the same time as a Prophet who wrote God's laws. But then how would he give these laws, which are absolute incompatible with God's Will? And the worst is that according to them, Moses wrote that God gave him these laws. God, they said, spoke to Moses and told him, if you buy a Hebrew slave, if you sale your daughter, if two men are fighting and the wife of the one wanted to help her husband, and catches the one from the genitals, you should cut her hand, and don't feel sorry for her, etc. And again, according to them, all these things and many other more unjust and barbaric, God said them to Moses! How then it would be possible for Moses to write lies, and yes, so terrible lies?     

     But let us put at the place of Moses some other legislator, who was not inspired by God. But even so, why would an ordinary legislator give these laws in the conditions of the desert? There were no slave-owners and landowners yet, and no body would sell his daughter in the desert. They were all poor and without land and homes. As it is written they used to live on manna and quails, and they were all previously slaves and wouldn't even think that after becoming free from slavery, they would be slaves again, and yes to some other previous slaves. They were all boiling in the same boiler, and all were crying and complaining that didn't have much to eat, so how then could they buy each other, and in any case what would they do with slaves, as nobody had a house or land for the slave to work on. Why then, even an ordinary legislator would give these kinds of laws, long time before it is necessary to enforce them?                    

     At verse 20 of the 12^th chapter is also written that God gave the law to Moses and said, if the slave owner beats his slave with a piece of wood or whip or cudgel, and the slave dies on his hands, he should be punished but in vague, and vague means almost nothing, but if the slave lives one or two days after the beating, then the master wouldn't be punished, because the slave is his income. So according to them, God "said" these words to Moses, and so God "said" that the slave is not exactly human being, but he is money and property of the "blessed" master. More comments are useless. But there is something else! If you beat your slave, "meaning you are free from God to beat your slaves as you like"! But if by beating him, you take out his tooth or eye, then you should let him free. Who knows how many slaves were hoping for their masters to take out some teeth! Well somebody would say, that at other countries, the conditions for the slaves were much worst. Yes indeed, in the darkening kingdom of the devil happened much more horrible, but all these things are unholy and evil, and they have no relation at all with God, but they wrote directly that God spoke to Moses, and gave him all those cunnings laws, which are clearly the laws of the devil. God may forgive them. 

      Now without looking at the laws one by one, lets us look them in general: the Leviticus laws about sacrifices, unclean women, and death penalties disobedience to the priests and others taboo laws. And again, all those things that are written in the book of Leviticus and in the other books of the Pentateuch, God said to Moses. Already from the beginning of that book it is written that God spoke to Moses and said. Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, when any one of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock. And there are a lot of laws that established the way of sacrifice, and must give the animals to Aaron and his sons who should use certain ways to kill the animal, to sprinkle the blood, and various other things, and Aaron and his sons could then eat the rest of grain offerings and the "holy meat".

     They also wrote about olive, ovens and other things in the desert. Well supposing that all this happened in the desert, as Moses and Aaron were in the desert. Moses used to take the orders and pass them to Aaron. But it is also written, that the people of Israel were wandering for 40 years in the desert, and from the beginning they used to murmur that they didn't have enough to eat, and for 40 years they used to live on manna, which they gathered in the morning, and quail, which they gathered in the afternoon. So how could they have cows, sheep, poultry, grain and oil that they baked in ovens in the desert and gave as offerings to God? Why complain that they didn't like the manna, when they could eat the bread they baked in their ovens, and could eat their tasty beef and lamb and poultry? Where did they find the grain and oil in the desert, as they didn't have farms to sow, or a mill to make oil, and where did they find the olive trees? If they had all these things then they were not in the desert, and they shouldn't have complained that they didn't like the manna, because they didn't eat manna. But again and according to the writings, they used to eat manna and quails for 40 years.

(And the sons of Israel ate the manna for forty years, until they came to an inhabited land; they ate the manna until they came to the borders of the land Canaan) Exodus. 16, 35.

And in the book of Joshua it is written on chapter 5, 10- 12.

(While the sons of Israel camped at Gilgar they observed the Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month on the desert plains of Jericho. And on the day after the Passover on the very day they ate some of the produce of land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. And the manna ceased on the day after they ate some of the produce of the land, so the sons of Israel no longer had manna, but they ate some of the yield of the land of Canaan during that year.)

      So according to the written word they ate manna until Joshua was a leader and after the death of Moses. But if they had all the goods of the world to eat, then why complain and cry? And the sons of Israel were crying and said, who will now give us meat to eat, where is the fish and greens, and where are the leeks and the garlic that we used to have in Egypt. They also used to put pressure on Moses and he asked for "explanations and apologies" from God. And they annoyed God and asked, is God with us or not? So they wrote that they had not meat and bread to eat, they had not flour, nor oil ovens etc, and because they had not used to annoy God, while they wrote that they had flocks poultry flour oil and ovens, and they could offer sacrifices. Well, namely how can we accept it! Or they had, or they had not. It couldn't be both. They used to give them, as they wrote, to Aaron and to his sons, and Aaron and his sons could eat the rest from the grain offerings. (And the remainder of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons.) Lev. 2, 3. And at the chapter 10, 12, 13, it is written that Moses told Aaron to eat from the grain offering. So when did Moses write laws about sacrifices?

     Supposing that God used to say all these words to Moses after the 10 Commandments, meaning in conditions in which they complained that they didn't have enough to eat, and so they didn't have any flocks, poultry, grain or oil etc. Beside this in the book of Deuteronomy is written that Moses said. That is what Lord said, and added no more. Meaning that God gave the 10 Commandments written on stones, and that was all, after the 10 Commandments the Lord didn't say anything else. Although, according to them, God used to speak every moment to Moses, and other times spoke to Aaron.

     Supposing, according to the writing, when the people of Israel came close to populated areas, they destroyed them and took their wealth and then started the sacrifices, and so Moses was obligated to write the laws quickly. But here also there are gaps and contradictions, because before the supposed conflict with other nations, Aaron was dead and was buried on the mountain Hor Numbers 20- 27.28. But according the writing, even after they destroyed the Canaanites east of the Jordan River, again they used to murmur that they didn't like the manna, and that they didn't have water to drink, and that they continued to camp in the desert. After the supposed conflict with the Canaanites, and while they destroyed their cities and called the place Horma, which meant destructiveness, they were again in the desert, and protested to God and to Moses; and the people spoke against God and Moses.

(Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness" For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this miserable food).  Numbers 21-5.

     How then did they sacrifice animals and grains? I say the "supposed conflicts" because yes these conflicts probably did happen around the time of Moses, but certainly not by Moses and not by the former slaves. They happened from the Yksos or from some other Semitic people, and it seems, in their ignorance, because maybe they were based in traditional rumour, they presented the slaughters as acts of Moses. They also wrote that even after the conflicts they continually camped in various areas of the desert and from the place of Moab they came to Veer, which was a well on which the Lord said, (meaning that this well was unknown before, and the posteriors knew it with the name Veer), gather the people and I will give them water to drink.  Then the people sung this song; spring up o' well. Sing to it, the well that the leaders sank, which the nobles of the people dug, with their sceptre. Again the rulers and nobles with their sceptre! But if it is possible! How did it happen for those people to be in the desert? What kind of relation would possible have the rulers and the nobles with Moses and with the naked previous slaves of Egypt? Those rulers and nobles, that sinful Hebrew elite, that one each time oppressive sovereignty of the devil, used to exist very posterior of Moses. They existed when the people of Israel were a state and lived in the areas of Palestine. What they were doing centuries before they were born, in the desert in which there used to live the previous slaves and wandering Jews? They wrote whatever they wanted, and indeed they are vexing.

      They wrote that they destroyed people and took their wealth, which was as they said many hundreds of thousands of animals—and although they didn't have enough to eat—and of course (according to them) they took their grain as well. And although we read again in the book of Joshua that for the first time they ate grain after crossing the Jordan River, and while Joshua was the leader. Moses was already dead, and Aaron was also dead, having died before the supposed conflicts and therefore before they had animals and grain. And again we read.

And on the day after the Passover…the manna ceased on the day they had had eaten some of the produce of the land, so the sons of Israel no longer had manna, but they ate of the yield of the land of Canaan during that year.    

       They are disappointing and vexing. They wrote literally, and they said clearly that for first time they ate bread, and for the first time they had flour after they crossed the Jordan River with Joshua as leader. How then could they offer sacrifices with flour and oil baked in the ovens? And if they had flocks before they destroyed the tribes, how could they survive in desert conditions, and then if they had flocks and every thing else, why complain and cry for food! If the sacrifices started only for animals after, as they said, they destroyed the people, how could they give them to Aaron while he was dead, and if the grain offerings started after the death of Moses and Aaron, how could he make laws, and how could Aaron eat the rest of the grain offerings and the holy meat, while he was already recycled in his tomb?

      And we shouldn't forget, that according the writings, the supposed conflicts with the tribes and cities they destroyed, and with the animals they took, happened at the end of the 40 years, and so they said clearly that Aaron was already dead a long time ago. After the death of Aaron, it is written that the animals and the grain offerings were given to Eleazar, and therefore they talk literally, but the contradictions are very obvious, because as they wrote, and we repeat again; they ate grain and therefore had flour for first time in the land of Canaan (certainly the Canaanites offered to them peacefully) while Joshua was the leader and of course Moses was dead. Either one is correct or the other. Either they had flocks, poultry, turtledoves, oil, grain and ovens in the desert, but then it was not a desert, and they had to eat without complaining, or they didn't have any of these things and ate the manna.

      Yes it is true; it is very difficult to find way out from these terrible books. Yes, these books transfer the messages of the Word of God through the holy inspired Prophet, but they also transfer and the most repulsive vomit unhesitating paranoiacs. God spoke to them, they said, and God told them! God told them to take revenge and God told them to kill nations! The Creator of the universe, and the Creator of the sun, God who gave birth to the Light of goodness and love was fighting with them to kill people and to cut the throats of the children. God told them to take revenge and gave them suitable laws according the evil interests of the rich rulers! Audacity and cunning. Well, everyone can understand who was speaking according to their cunning interests, and everyone knows that he who spoke to them was the devil. By reading these books we feel as suffocated from indignation, we feel like lost in a terrible and human-like jungle. The world was like a jungle and yet remains as jungle. The darkening kingdom of the devil must be destroyed, must fall to a million of pieces. In that terrible jungle, the conflicts, the hate, the revenge, the terrible racism, the insatiable thirst of the rich for sovereignty and slaves, and the struggle for survival were never absent. The paranoiac rulers were trying to convince the people that all was happening by the orders of God, and so they presented them as Moses acts, in order to justify and consecrate their cunning actions.

      I must say that they were unhesitating, and no more or less they presented Moses as the most repulsive killer. They wanted him to commit the most terrible crimes against other nations and they also wrote that Moses gave orders to kill all men, all women who were wives or had sexual relations, all male children, and keep alive only virgins and little girls. They sowed together various stories of horrible criminal wars, and fused them with various happenings in the desert, which came to them by tradition, and while Moses was absent they presented all those crimes as his actions, and no more or less they also presented them as acts that happen by God's orders. They don't even justify the crimes, they only show us a repulsive and vexing candy, whose bitter taste shows those people as corrupted pagans, and God as "terrible and pitiless" and asking for revenge, God according to the paranoiacs wanted the chosen people to take revenge for God. Is there anything worst than to say to the people, that when they kill and take revenge, they please God?

The audacity is truly unprecedented.

      Snatchings and plundering, pitiless slaughters, pagan nations who were destroyed by "God's orders", as if the virgins were not pagans while the little boys were corrupted pagans who should be killed with a frightful unscrupulousness. As they adapted Abraham to match their materialist interests, namely they were rich slave owners, so Abraham too was a rich slave owner, and similarly they shaped Moses to fit their criminal acts, and their plans and pursuits. They had to encourage the people to be pitiless to the enemy, hate your enemy was God's order as they said, and so they wrote that those horrible crimes were committed by Moses, but mysteriously the crimes were not crimes but punishments for corrupted people, while the murderers were holy. They handle the pens and blacken Moses and hang on his neck a lot sins and annex them in God's will and often in their ignorance and cunnings mix Him with their traditional gods. They presented an odd Moses who is no different to many of the very famous homicide, and child murderers, and consequently. Even the ferocious Herod of Bethlehem appears a smaller felon than Moses. There is no way to equate him to the holy Prophet, who also appeared on the mountain in front of the Lord Christ, and this image alone cries out and calls the writers liars and slanderers. The holy inspired Prophet Moses is INNOCENT.     

     The holy Prophet was the defender of life and justice, and he was nearly killed by the paranoid felons when he was a boy. But those people, confused with their traditional gods and blinded by their interests, present him as a child killer to match them, and they blaspheme God by saying that the Creator of this astonishing universe, the Spring of life and justice, the Crucified Light, the Spring of love, the One Who takes away the sins of the world, that Lord gave the orders for slaughter and revenge. The paranoiacs who similarly exist in every historic time, like those who later cried crucify! Crucify Him. They wrote about the Holy and Almighty God, about our lovely Father, as they would write about a pathetic little man, like they wrote about a pitiless old god who asks for slaughter and revenge, and as a weakling god asked the chosen people to take that revenge, and the chosen run to take revenge to kill to plundering.

      The traditions were coming from various sources of many tribes, and crossed many centuries and the mixing of tribes; they were transferring not only the virtue of simple people but also the repulsive vomit of unhesitating felons. They express and reflect some things worse than animals' instincts; they express a mutilated conscience, sick destructiveness, and unhesitating rapacious dispositions. The traditions would talk about some new sons of gods, pitiless murderers of children and other innocent people, and as "gods' sons" they were obeying to their corrupted gods. In times of big mutual slaughters, in which Israel was powerful state, the rich rulers used to ask the army to commit crimes and in trying to convince them, they presented Moses as angry with the generals, who inconsiderately had left the women alive. The same phenomenon can also be seeing in the book of Judges.

      Certainly there were times in which a lot of people had been converted into slaves while their land had been conquered, and sometimes the human-owners had too many of them; some of them been considered as useless, and so the "pious" rich, decided to keep only virgin girls. The "pious" rulers wanted only slave virgins for their harems, and so they gave orders "as gods" to kill all the others and keep only the virgins to taste them. After the slaughters they should wash their cloths and stay away 7 days until the atonement, not because they killed children but because they touch the dead, this was their problem! How miserable those virgins must have felt, by being raped after their ravishers had already killed their brothers and parents? So many terrible things and crimes happen in the darkening kingdom of the serpent, and how terrible, they happen in the name of our Holy and lovely God.

       So we see that all coexisted, and all are like the entangled blackberry bush. All are entangled as the blackberry bush because wherever the human runs the devil runs also. In the Bible they are all mixed up, and all coexist and reflect the turbulent history with its manifold forms. The Bible transfers the Will of God, but yes, it also transfers the will of the devil. The Bible transfers love and hate, forgiveness and revenge, truth and lie, justice and injustice, goodness and wickedness, wisdom and absurdity, and so many other things speak the confused language of the Tower of Babel. In the Bible they speak about God while they were submitted to the devil, they speak about the Light by serving the darkness, they speak about the Holy by serving the unholy, there is the history and myth, the law and taboo, degradation of woman and sinister morality of male, wisdom coexists with silliness and ignorance, crime and genocide wars and much more appear as the Word of God. How the Light, the Holy Word, not to be crucified, when the Lord had been already crucified!